The Economist's article on Ukraine corruption seems incredible to me. I mean, it is perfectly credible and probably true, but reflects a situation that could not be imagined ten -twenty years ago. The Economist describes America's activities in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, etc. as a battle against corruption, taking as a fact that America is somehow responsible for that area and has the right to impose its political concepts on the hundred million persons inhabiting Eastern Europe or better, Western Russia.
First, it takes for granted and natural that Ukraine, a political entity that formerly was a province of the Soviet Union, has been detached from Russia and is part of the American empire. Second, it never occurs to The Economist that "corruption" is an internal issue and foreign powers - from the other side of the ocean - do not normally intervene in these things. Imagine China intervening in the USA to impose its political habits, its ideas about private property and so. The journal assumes as natural and necessary that the hegemonic power intervenes to impose its civilized norms on corrupt, misgoverned colonized peoples.
I have my doubts if the corruption America is battling in Ukraine is the corruption they imagine or just a local system of doing business and apportioning power and influence. As for me, I have no opinion and do not care. Israeli waiters are not paid a salary, they are supposed to receive tips. In Bauchi where I worked, public functionaries were not paid but support themselves and buy their uniforms by taking "bribes". Is that corruption?
Anyway, the bottom line is that America has succeeded in dividing Russia and turning a large part of it into a hostile country. Ukraine and Russia are in war. And Ukraine is now a country (one of Europe's largest) where American politicians fight out their own rivalries as it was Washington or California.
It is only natural that China fears America, and it fears Hong Kong's movement toward its detachment from China. For all the talk about America's decadence, it is quite imaginable that the 2040 Economist shall comment on "America losing the Battle Against Corruption in the Canton-Fujian Republic".
First, it takes for granted and natural that Ukraine, a political entity that formerly was a province of the Soviet Union, has been detached from Russia and is part of the American empire. Second, it never occurs to The Economist that "corruption" is an internal issue and foreign powers - from the other side of the ocean - do not normally intervene in these things. Imagine China intervening in the USA to impose its political habits, its ideas about private property and so. The journal assumes as natural and necessary that the hegemonic power intervenes to impose its civilized norms on corrupt, misgoverned colonized peoples.
I have my doubts if the corruption America is battling in Ukraine is the corruption they imagine or just a local system of doing business and apportioning power and influence. As for me, I have no opinion and do not care. Israeli waiters are not paid a salary, they are supposed to receive tips. In Bauchi where I worked, public functionaries were not paid but support themselves and buy their uniforms by taking "bribes". Is that corruption?
Anyway, the bottom line is that America has succeeded in dividing Russia and turning a large part of it into a hostile country. Ukraine and Russia are in war. And Ukraine is now a country (one of Europe's largest) where American politicians fight out their own rivalries as it was Washington or California.
It is only natural that China fears America, and it fears Hong Kong's movement toward its detachment from China. For all the talk about America's decadence, it is quite imaginable that the 2040 Economist shall comment on "America losing the Battle Against Corruption in the Canton-Fujian Republic".